We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening,laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties withhis charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed.
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening,laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties withhis charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:communists with the expected dags hanging from their rear.
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed.
It seems they're also VERY pissed at Winston giving the country a pack of
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening,laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties withhis charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:preening, laziness and love of baubles.
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying,
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed.
So you say.Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all, hypocrites that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat Peters in
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them what
Your embarrassment is that, for the past 40 or so years, your 'idiot' has notonly been profiting mightily off his wily machinations, but is still succeeding
Me? I'm just loving it!
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:preening, laziness and love of baubles.
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying,
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed.
So you say.Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all, hypocrites that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat Peters in
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them what
Your embarrassment is that, for the past 40 or so years, your 'idiot' has notonly been profiting mightily off his wily machinations, but is still succeeding
Me? I'm just loving it!
On 11/8/2017 4:44 PM, Pooh wrote:Can you give an example? We do know that National abused privacy on
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening, laziness and love of baubles.It seems they're also VERY pissed at Winston giving the country a pack of communists with the expected dags hanging from their rear.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed. >>
This is the same character who spent most of the last parliamentary
session threatening other members with all manner of 'revelations'...
Liebor are going to regret having to rely on him
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.Your opinion does not make anything obvious; except that clearly you
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed.What a stupid empty statement.
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:16:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>preening, laziness and love of baubles.
wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying,
Can you give an example of his lying? There haven't been any stories
abut drunkenness for quite a few years now. Do you have any evidence
of bullying? Laziness is an easy accusation to make - most often made
by those who want to attack without evidence - do you have an example?
As for love of baubles, National offered more baubles than Labour. Was
there a point to your statement?
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
So are yu calling Ardern and English liars? Both said that the
discussions were almost entirely focussed on policies; they involved
more than just Winston, and both believed that the negotiations were
in good faith. Now of course we know that English is capable of lying
- his stupid support for the big lie by Steven Joyce probably cost
National votes, and wrecked his reputation, but he does not aappear to
have changed his mond about the negotiations
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made
Your opinion does not make anything obvious; except that clearly you
(and Barry Soper) believe that the leak was yet another particualrly
vile "dirty trick" from National. Whether such beliefs had any impact
on the decision by the NZ First Party is unknown.
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed. What a stupid empty statement.
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:10:17 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:preening, laziness and love of baubles.
On 11/8/2017 4:44 PM, Pooh wrote:
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying,
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646 >>>
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made
communists with the expected dags hanging from their rear.It seems they're also VERY pissed at Winston giving the country a pack of
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed. >>
This is the same character who spent most of the last parliamentaryCan you give an example? We do know that National abused privacy on
session threatening other members with all manner of 'revelations'... >Liebor are going to regret having to rely on him
quite a few occasions, and many (including Soper) appear to believe
that National indeed was indulging in another "dirty trick" against a
party that they may have wished to work with in government - I'm not
aware of anything comparable from Winston Peters.
Labour may well regret having to rely on NZ First - but not as much as Naitonal must regret their behaviour - dirty tricks from National may
have had a small influence on voting and the NZ First decision, but of
more relevance is probably their poor decision-making - their crony capitalism that favoured their mates over all New Zealanders; their
woeful economic performance; their denial of problems, including
changing the definition of unemployment to get the rate down, their
poor investment decisions (think about the asset sales), their
tolerance of inefficient markets (think petrol, or the Chch rebuild),
their punitive attitude to even a suspicion of benefit fraud, while
spending less on financially more important areas like tax fraud and avoidance, their denial of even the existence of many problems - think
water quality, poverty, the housing crisis, and lastly their poor
political management, stemming from arrogance - would you go into
coalition with National knowing what had happened to the Maori Party,
to United Future and yes also to ACT? National have shown that they
have not lost that arrogance - in parliament they have already lied
about a change in select committee numbers that they had themselves
put through parliament in July this year, and reneged on an agreement
to elect the Speaker unanimously in return for a National MP becoming
Deputy Speaker, and shown that they have an imperfect knowledge of
either common sense or the rules of parliament. Not a good start!
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:42:46 UTC+13, jmschri...@gmail.com wrote:less than a
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed. >>
So you say.
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them what Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all, hypocrites that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat Peters in
You have no idea. The fact that National refused to offer Winston much in order to gain power runs counter to your poorly thought through comment.Do you have a cite for that? - I thought National offered one more
Your embarrassment is that, for the past 40 or so years, your 'idiot' has not only been profiting mightily off his wily machinations, but is still succeeding in rarking up panicky little prima donnas like you ;-)
Why would I be embarrassed by that? I'm not embarrassed by old fools. That's why I'm not at all embarrassed by your own weird displays of obsessive behaviour here.
Me? I'm just loving it!
Sure you are Keith. Sure you are.
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:16:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>preening, laziness and love of baubles.
wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying,
Can you give an example of his lying?
If you would just hesitate and think before posting, Keith, this might haveoccurred to you: The greatest embarrassment is to Labour, who held their ankles
So that's three times now that Labour have lost in a bluffing completions -once to Winston, once to Turnbull over refugees and once to the Nats over the Speaker vote.
Got help us when they attempt to negotiate with overseas trade partners.They'll peg this mob as a simple-minded easy touch from a mile away.
On 11/9/2017 3:58 PM, JohnO wrote:occurred to you: The greatest embarrassment is to Labour, who held their ankles
If you would just hesitate and think before posting, Keith, this might have
once to Winston, once to Turnbull over refugees and once to the Nats over the Speaker vote.So that's three times now that Labour have lost in a bluffing completions -
They'll peg this mob as a simple-minded easy touch from a mile away.Got help us when they attempt to negotiate with overseas trade partners.
All that about the TPP being the worst thing in the world is now all go
for liebor :)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 4:00:06 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:to cite three examples. I am still waiting for a response .......
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:16:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening, laziness and love of baubles.
Can you give an example of his lying?
Look, mate - some years ago you accused me of lying on this ng. I asked you
On 11/10/2017 7:56 AM, peterwn wrote:preening, laziness and love of baubles.
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 4:00:06 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:16:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying,
to cite three examples. I am still waiting for a response .......
Can you give an example of his lying?
Look, mate - some years ago you accused me of lying on this ng. I asked you
He should remember the sale of Huka Lodge claim by Peters
Or the claimed sale of a very large farm (Lochinvar)just outside Taupo
Or the many many claims he made in the House as to the veracity and
honesty of other members
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Friday, 10 November 2017 09:51:15 UTC+13, george wrote:preening, laziness and love of baubles.
On 11/10/2017 7:56 AM, peterwn wrote:
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 4:00:06 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:16:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying,
you to cite three examples. I am still waiting for a response .......
Can you give an example of his lying?
Look, mate - some years ago you accused me of lying on this ng. I asked
privilege. He's a cowardly muck slinging wanker. He just held the whole country
He should remember the sale of Huka Lodge claim by Peters
Or the claimed sale of a very large farm (Lochinvar)just outside Taupo
Or the many many claims he made in the House as to the veracity and honesty of other members
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
And Winston has for decades had the habit of making wild claims under
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 4:00:06 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:preening, laziness and love of baubles.
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:16:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying,
to cite three examples. I am still waiting for a response .......Can you give an example of his lying?
Look, mate - some years ago you accused me of lying on this ng. I asked you
On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 10:42:16 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:to ransom, once again, only this time it was a colossal bluff. How so many people (7%) can't see the
On Friday, 10 November 2017 09:51:15 UTC+13, george wrote:
On 11/10/2017 7:56 AM, peterwn wrote:
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 4:00:06 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:He should remember the sale of Huka Lodge claim by Peters
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:16:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening, laziness and love of baubles.
Can you give an example of his lying?
Look, mate - some years ago you accused me of lying on this ng. I asked you to cite three examples. I am still waiting for a response .......
Or the claimed sale of a very large farm (Lochinvar)just outside Taupo
Or the many many claims he made in the House as to the veracity and
honesty of other members
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
And Winston has for decades had the habit of making wild claims under privilege. He's a cowardly muck slinging wanker. He just held the whole country
His party will disappear as soon as Winnie retires. Wether he's around or not my bet is it'll be the last time we see anyone from WinstonFirst in parliament next election. If they bother to field any candidates after winnies latest bauble gather:)
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:53:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>less than a
wrote:
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:42:46 UTC+13, jmschri...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646 >>> >
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed. >>>
So you say.
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them what Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all, hypocrites that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat Peters in
Do you have a cite for that? - I thought National offered one more
You have no idea. The fact that National refused to offer Winston much in order to gain power runs counter to your poorly thought through comment.
cabinet position to NZ Forst than they achieved under Labour.
Your embarrassment is that, for the past 40 or so years, your 'idiot' has not only been profiting mightily off his wily machinations, but is still succeeding in rarking up panicky little prima donnas like you ;-)
Why would I be embarrassed by that? I'm not embarrassed by old fools. That's why I'm not at all embarrassed by your own weird displays of obsessive behaviour here.
Me? I'm just loving it!
Sure you are Keith. Sure you are.
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:30:51 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:53:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:42:46 UTC+13, jmschri...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:cabinet position to NZ Forst than they achieved under Labour.
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying,
preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties >>>> >with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646 >>>> >
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made >>>> >everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker.
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed.
So you say.
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them what >>>>Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all, hypocrites
that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat Peters in
less than a heartbeat had he opted to join them.
You have no idea. The fact that National refused to offer Winston much in >>>order to gain power runs counter to your poorly thought through comment. >>Do you have a cite for that? - I thought National offered one more
Yes National did offer more to NZ First than Labour did - see >https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98087944/the-longest-day-of-a-very-long-campaign--17-hours-that-decided-the-new-government
" . . . But on a more substantive note, NZ First's final stance was
coming into focus both on the Beehive ninth floor and over at the
Labour leader's office.
Labour knew they were still in the game because the to-ing and
fro-ing, and the requests for clarifications, kept up a steady pace.
Get the who, what, why of NZ politics in our newsletter
But on Bill English's side the contact drifted away as early as
lunchtime. Silence was not golden. Up at Paula Bennett's office what
turned into a consolation party - silly hats and all - kicked off
about 5pm, two hours before the official announcement, and ran late
into the night.
The strongest sign came mid-afternoon, with an apparent scoop by the
National Business Review reporting National had knocked back NZ First >requests for even more Cabinet and ministerial posts.
Whether it was right or not, the fact of a leak from the previously
tightly held talks was seen as a clear sign all was not well on the
National side - and that someone was trying to spin a narrative that
Labour was caving in while National stood firm and principled.
Peters - as well as English and Ardern - has since rubbished the
claim. It seems the truth was quite the reverse. National had in fact
offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers outside Cabinet compared
with Labour's offer of four and three.
What had really been the decisive issue was National's refusal to bend
on key policies - which just fed what was seen as NZ First's
preference for a new government of change rather than supporting a
fourth term National administration with some nipping and tucking on
economic policy.
It seems National was prepared to offer more "baubles of office" but
was not prepared to compromise on key economic policies including
monetary policy, and major increase in spending or further curbs on
foreign investment. Labour's policy - by comparison - was already
moving in that direction.
Immigration, too, was a sticking point though here the picture is
murkier, depending on who you talk to. One scenario suggests Labour
would not move substantially from its policy to lower net immigration
by "only" 25,000 to 30,000 as planned and it was National that was
prepared to make deeper cuts.
Others suggested National resisted making any formal cuts. But both >variations agree that National's view was that immigration would fall
sharply anyway, as the cycle turned, and it was not a big impediment.
The final big ticket item was apparently National's refusal to
countenance Peters' flagship campaign policy of moving Auckland's port
to Whangarei.
But of course none of this was obvious at the time. . . ."
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:30:51 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>A fascinating examples of spin and misinformation bordering on untruths.
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:53:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:42:46 UTC+13, jmschri...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, >>>>> >preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political parties
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace. >>>>> >
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646 >>>>> >
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still made
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker. >>>>> >
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very embarrassed.
So you say.
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them what
Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all, hypocrites
that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat Peters in
less than a heartbeat had he opted to join them.
You have no idea. The fact that National refused to offer Winston much in >>>>order to gain power runs counter to your poorly thought through comment. >>>Do you have a cite for that? - I thought National offered one more >>>cabinet position to NZ Forst than they achieved under Labour.
Yes National did offer more to NZ First than Labour did - see >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98087944/the-longest-day-of-a-very-long-campaign--17-hours-that-decided-the-new-government
" . . . But on a more substantive note, NZ First's final stance was
coming into focus both on the Beehive ninth floor and over at the
Labour leader's office.
Labour knew they were still in the game because the to-ing and
fro-ing, and the requests for clarifications, kept up a steady pace.
Get the who, what, why of NZ politics in our newsletter
But on Bill English's side the contact drifted away as early as
lunchtime. Silence was not golden. Up at Paula Bennett's office what
turned into a consolation party - silly hats and all - kicked off
about 5pm, two hours before the official announcement, and ran late
into the night.
The strongest sign came mid-afternoon, with an apparent scoop by the >>National Business Review reporting National had knocked back NZ First >>requests for even more Cabinet and ministerial posts.
Whether it was right or not, the fact of a leak from the previously
tightly held talks was seen as a clear sign all was not well on the >>National side - and that someone was trying to spin a narrative that
Labour was caving in while National stood firm and principled.
Peters - as well as English and Ardern - has since rubbished the
claim. It seems the truth was quite the reverse. National had in fact >>offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers outside Cabinet compared
with Labour's offer of four and three.
What had really been the decisive issue was National's refusal to bend
on key policies - which just fed what was seen as NZ First's
preference for a new government of change rather than supporting a
fourth term National administration with some nipping and tucking on >>economic policy.
It seems National was prepared to offer more "baubles of office" but
was not prepared to compromise on key economic policies including
monetary policy, and major increase in spending or further curbs on
foreign investment. Labour's policy - by comparison - was already
moving in that direction.
Immigration, too, was a sticking point though here the picture is
murkier, depending on who you talk to. One scenario suggests Labour
would not move substantially from its policy to lower net immigration
by "only" 25,000 to 30,000 as planned and it was National that was
prepared to make deeper cuts.
Others suggested National resisted making any formal cuts. But both >>variations agree that National's view was that immigration would fall >>sharply anyway, as the cycle turned, and it was not a big impediment.
The final big ticket item was apparently National's refusal to
countenance Peters' flagship campaign policy of moving Auckland's port
to Whangarei.
But of course none of this was obvious at the time. . . ."
The repeated emphasis on National refusing to do stuff clearly indicates a >political bias here. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to say that the >parties did not agree rather than one "refused"; the implication clearly being >that National were wrong to stick to their beliefs and policies. If that is >true then it follows that all parties involved were equally wrong.
Rich salivating once more over a tiny morsel.
<nonsense snipped>
Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:34:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:30:51 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:53:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:42:46 UTC+13, jmschri...@gmail.com
inOn Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote: >>>>>> > We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, >>>>>> >preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political >>>>>> >parties
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace. >>>>>> >
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still >>>>>> >made
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker. >>>>>> >
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very
embarrassed.
So you say.
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them >>>>>>what
Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all, >>>>>>hypocrites
that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat >>>>>>Peters in
less than a heartbeat had he opted to join them.
You have no idea. The fact that National refused to offer Winston much
A fascinating examples of spin and misinformation bordering on untruths. >>The repeated emphasis on National refusing to do stuff clearly indicates a >>political bias here. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to say that >>theorder to gain power runs counter to your poorly thought through comment. >>>>Do you have a cite for that? - I thought National offered one more >>>>cabinet position to NZ Forst than they achieved under Labour.
Yes National did offer more to NZ First than Labour did - see >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98087944/the-longest-day-of-a-very-long-campaign--17-hours-that-decided-the-new-government
" . . . But on a more substantive note, NZ First's final stance was >>>coming into focus both on the Beehive ninth floor and over at the >>>Labour leader's office.
Labour knew they were still in the game because the to-ing and
fro-ing, and the requests for clarifications, kept up a steady pace.
Get the who, what, why of NZ politics in our newsletter
But on Bill English's side the contact drifted away as early as >>>lunchtime. Silence was not golden. Up at Paula Bennett's office what >>>turned into a consolation party - silly hats and all - kicked off
about 5pm, two hours before the official announcement, and ran late >>>into the night.
The strongest sign came mid-afternoon, with an apparent scoop by the >>>National Business Review reporting National had knocked back NZ First >>>requests for even more Cabinet and ministerial posts.
Whether it was right or not, the fact of a leak from the previously >>>tightly held talks was seen as a clear sign all was not well on the >>>National side - and that someone was trying to spin a narrative that >>>Labour was caving in while National stood firm and principled.
Peters - as well as English and Ardern - has since rubbished the
claim. It seems the truth was quite the reverse. National had in fact >>>offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers outside Cabinet compared >>>with Labour's offer of four and three.
What had really been the decisive issue was National's refusal to bend >>>on key policies - which just fed what was seen as NZ First's
preference for a new government of change rather than supporting a >>>fourth term National administration with some nipping and tucking on >>>economic policy.
It seems National was prepared to offer more "baubles of office" but >>>was not prepared to compromise on key economic policies including >>>monetary policy, and major increase in spending or further curbs on >>>foreign investment. Labour's policy - by comparison - was already >>>moving in that direction.
Immigration, too, was a sticking point though here the picture is >>>murkier, depending on who you talk to. One scenario suggests Labour >>>would not move substantially from its policy to lower net immigration >>>by "only" 25,000 to 30,000 as planned and it was National that was >>>prepared to make deeper cuts.
Others suggested National resisted making any formal cuts. But both >>>variations agree that National's view was that immigration would fall >>>sharply anyway, as the cycle turned, and it was not a big impediment.
The final big ticket item was apparently National's refusal to >>>countenance Peters' flagship campaign policy of moving Auckland's port >>>to Whangarei.
But of course none of this was obvious at the time. . . ."
parties did not agree rather than one "refused"; the implication clearly >>being
that National were wrong to stick to their beliefs and policies. If that is >>true then it follows that all parties involved were equally wrong.
Rich salivating once more over a tiny morsel.
<nonsense snipped>
Tony
The critical bit was this:
"National had in fact offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers
outside Cabinet compared with Labour's offer of four and three."
JohnO's spin was clearly wrong.There is no critical bit.
Any spin that JohnO might be guilty of is eclipsed by the nonsense in the article. The statement about the number of posts is not accompanied by evidence. So far as I know it is unsubstantiated opinion.
Tony
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:34:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThere is no critical bit.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:30:51 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:A fascinating examples of spin and misinformation bordering on untruths. >>The repeated emphasis on National refusing to do stuff clearly indicates a >>political bias here. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to say that >>the
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:53:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:42:46 UTC+13, jmschri...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote: >>>>>> > We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, >>>>>> >preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political >>>>>> >parties
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace. >>>>>> >
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646 >>>>>> >
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still >>>>>> >made
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker. >>>>>> >
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very
embarrassed.
So you say.
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them >>>>>>what
Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all, >>>>>>hypocrites
that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat >>>>>>Peters in
less than a heartbeat had he opted to join them.
You have no idea. The fact that National refused to offer Winston much in >>>>>order to gain power runs counter to your poorly thought through comment. >>>>Do you have a cite for that? - I thought National offered one more >>>>cabinet position to NZ Forst than they achieved under Labour.
Yes National did offer more to NZ First than Labour did - see >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98087944/the-longest-day-of-a-very-long-campaign--17-hours-that-decided-the-new-government
" . . . But on a more substantive note, NZ First's final stance was >>>coming into focus both on the Beehive ninth floor and over at the
Labour leader's office.
Labour knew they were still in the game because the to-ing and
fro-ing, and the requests for clarifications, kept up a steady pace.
Get the who, what, why of NZ politics in our newsletter
But on Bill English's side the contact drifted away as early as >>>lunchtime. Silence was not golden. Up at Paula Bennett's office what >>>turned into a consolation party - silly hats and all - kicked off
about 5pm, two hours before the official announcement, and ran late
into the night.
The strongest sign came mid-afternoon, with an apparent scoop by the >>>National Business Review reporting National had knocked back NZ First >>>requests for even more Cabinet and ministerial posts.
Whether it was right or not, the fact of a leak from the previously >>>tightly held talks was seen as a clear sign all was not well on the >>>National side - and that someone was trying to spin a narrative that >>>Labour was caving in while National stood firm and principled.
Peters - as well as English and Ardern - has since rubbished the
claim. It seems the truth was quite the reverse. National had in fact >>>offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers outside Cabinet compared >>>with Labour's offer of four and three.
What had really been the decisive issue was National's refusal to bend
on key policies - which just fed what was seen as NZ First's
preference for a new government of change rather than supporting a
fourth term National administration with some nipping and tucking on >>>economic policy.
It seems National was prepared to offer more "baubles of office" but
was not prepared to compromise on key economic policies including >>>monetary policy, and major increase in spending or further curbs on >>>foreign investment. Labour's policy - by comparison - was already
moving in that direction.
Immigration, too, was a sticking point though here the picture is >>>murkier, depending on who you talk to. One scenario suggests Labour
would not move substantially from its policy to lower net immigration
by "only" 25,000 to 30,000 as planned and it was National that was >>>prepared to make deeper cuts.
Others suggested National resisted making any formal cuts. But both >>>variations agree that National's view was that immigration would fall >>>sharply anyway, as the cycle turned, and it was not a big impediment.
The final big ticket item was apparently National's refusal to >>>countenance Peters' flagship campaign policy of moving Auckland's port
to Whangarei.
But of course none of this was obvious at the time. . . ."
parties did not agree rather than one "refused"; the implication clearly >>being
that National were wrong to stick to their beliefs and policies. If that is >>true then it follows that all parties involved were equally wrong.
Rich salivating once more over a tiny morsel.
<nonsense snipped>
Tony
The critical bit was this:
"National had in fact offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers
outside Cabinet compared with Labour's offer of four and three."
JohnO's spin was clearly wrong.
On Sunday, 12 November 2017 08:43:00 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote: >> Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I have often disagreed with Heather du Plessis-Allan but she has got this one right.
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:34:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThere is no critical bit.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:30:51 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:53:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:42:46 UTC+13, jmschri...@gmail.comDo you have a cite for that? - I thought National offered one more
wrote:
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, >> >>>>>> >preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political
parties
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace. >> >>>>>> >
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still >> >>>>>> >made
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker. >> >>>>>> >
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very
embarrassed.
So you say.
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them >> >>>>>>what
Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all,
hypocrites
that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat >> >>>>>>Peters in
less than a heartbeat had he opted to join them.
You have no idea. The fact that National refused to offer Winston much >> >>>>>in
order to gain power runs counter to your poorly thought through comment.
cabinet position to NZ Forst than they achieved under Labour.
Yes National did offer more to NZ First than Labour did - see
A fascinating examples of spin and misinformation bordering on untruths. >> >>The repeated emphasis on National refusing to do stuff clearly indicates a >> >>political bias here. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to say that >> >>thehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98087944/the-longest-day-of-a-very-long-campaign--17-hours-that-decided-the-new-government
" . . . But on a more substantive note, NZ First's final stance was
coming into focus both on the Beehive ninth floor and over at the
Labour leader's office.
Labour knew they were still in the game because the to-ing and
fro-ing, and the requests for clarifications, kept up a steady pace.
Get the who, what, why of NZ politics in our newsletter
But on Bill English's side the contact drifted away as early as
lunchtime. Silence was not golden. Up at Paula Bennett's office what
turned into a consolation party - silly hats and all - kicked off
about 5pm, two hours before the official announcement, and ran late
into the night.
The strongest sign came mid-afternoon, with an apparent scoop by the
National Business Review reporting National had knocked back NZ First
requests for even more Cabinet and ministerial posts.
Whether it was right or not, the fact of a leak from the previously
tightly held talks was seen as a clear sign all was not well on the
National side - and that someone was trying to spin a narrative that
Labour was caving in while National stood firm and principled.
Peters - as well as English and Ardern - has since rubbished the
claim. It seems the truth was quite the reverse. National had in fact
offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers outside Cabinet compared
with Labour's offer of four and three.
What had really been the decisive issue was National's refusal to bend
on key policies - which just fed what was seen as NZ First's
preference for a new government of change rather than supporting a
fourth term National administration with some nipping and tucking on
economic policy.
It seems National was prepared to offer more "baubles of office" but
was not prepared to compromise on key economic policies including
monetary policy, and major increase in spending or further curbs on
foreign investment. Labour's policy - by comparison - was already
moving in that direction.
Immigration, too, was a sticking point though here the picture is
murkier, depending on who you talk to. One scenario suggests Labour
would not move substantially from its policy to lower net immigration
by "only" 25,000 to 30,000 as planned and it was National that was
prepared to make deeper cuts.
Others suggested National resisted making any formal cuts. But both
variations agree that National's view was that immigration would fall
sharply anyway, as the cycle turned, and it was not a big impediment.
The final big ticket item was apparently National's refusal to
countenance Peters' flagship campaign policy of moving Auckland's port
to Whangarei.
But of course none of this was obvious at the time. . . ."
parties did not agree rather than one "refused"; the implication clearly >> >>being
that National were wrong to stick to their beliefs and policies. If that >> >>is
true then it follows that all parties involved were equally wrong.
Rich salivating once more over a tiny morsel.
<nonsense snipped>
Tony
The critical bit was this:
"National had in fact offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers
outside Cabinet compared with Labour's offer of four and three."
JohnO's spin was clearly wrong.
Any spin that JohnO might be guilty of is eclipsed by the nonsense in the
article. The statement about the number of posts is not accompanied by
evidence. So far as I know it is unsubstantiated opinion.
Tony
No spin from me either. Dickbot's found an opinion from a journalist about >cabinet offers and I believe it's crap.
Winston got what he wanted from Labour - many more cabinet positions that his >vote earned, a cushy Foreign Affairs job that is max first class travel and min
work.
But the main issue is that Winston negotiated in bad faith. And Labour are >lying like flatfish already: >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11942657
I'm sure Jacinda said she wasn't going to tell any lies. That was the first >one.Too much enthusiasm and not enough experience.
On Sunday, 12 November 2017 08:43:00 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote: >> Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:34:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThere is no critical bit.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:30:51 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>A fascinating examples of spin and misinformation bordering on untruths. >> >>The repeated emphasis on National refusing to do stuff clearly indicates a >> >>political bias here. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to say that >> >>the
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:53:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:42:46 UTC+13, jmschri...@gmail.com wrote:Do you have a cite for that? - I thought National offered one more
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, >> >>>>>> >preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political
parties
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond disgrace. >> >>>>>> >
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet still >> >>>>>> >made
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a wanker. >> >>>>>> >
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very
embarrassed.
So you say.
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to them >> >>>>>>what
Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all,
hypocrites
that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead rat >> >>>>>>Peters in
less than a heartbeat had he opted to join them.
You have no idea. The fact that National refused to offer Winston much in
order to gain power runs counter to your poorly thought through comment.
cabinet position to NZ Forst than they achieved under Labour.
Yes National did offer more to NZ First than Labour did - see
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98087944/the-longest-day-of-a-very-long-campaign--17-hours-that-decided-the-new-government
" . . . But on a more substantive note, NZ First's final stance was
coming into focus both on the Beehive ninth floor and over at the
Labour leader's office.
Labour knew they were still in the game because the to-ing and
fro-ing, and the requests for clarifications, kept up a steady pace.
Get the who, what, why of NZ politics in our newsletter
But on Bill English's side the contact drifted away as early as
lunchtime. Silence was not golden. Up at Paula Bennett's office what
turned into a consolation party - silly hats and all - kicked off
about 5pm, two hours before the official announcement, and ran late
into the night.
The strongest sign came mid-afternoon, with an apparent scoop by the
National Business Review reporting National had knocked back NZ First
requests for even more Cabinet and ministerial posts.
Whether it was right or not, the fact of a leak from the previously
tightly held talks was seen as a clear sign all was not well on the
National side - and that someone was trying to spin a narrative that
Labour was caving in while National stood firm and principled.
Peters - as well as English and Ardern - has since rubbished the
claim. It seems the truth was quite the reverse. National had in fact
offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers outside Cabinet compared
with Labour's offer of four and three.
What had really been the decisive issue was National's refusal to bend
on key policies - which just fed what was seen as NZ First's
preference for a new government of change rather than supporting a
fourth term National administration with some nipping and tucking on
economic policy.
It seems National was prepared to offer more "baubles of office" but
was not prepared to compromise on key economic policies including
monetary policy, and major increase in spending or further curbs on
foreign investment. Labour's policy - by comparison - was already
moving in that direction.
Immigration, too, was a sticking point though here the picture is
murkier, depending on who you talk to. One scenario suggests Labour
would not move substantially from its policy to lower net immigration
by "only" 25,000 to 30,000 as planned and it was National that was
prepared to make deeper cuts.
Others suggested National resisted making any formal cuts. But both
variations agree that National's view was that immigration would fall
sharply anyway, as the cycle turned, and it was not a big impediment.
The final big ticket item was apparently National's refusal to
countenance Peters' flagship campaign policy of moving Auckland's port
to Whangarei.
But of course none of this was obvious at the time. . . ."
parties did not agree rather than one "refused"; the implication clearly >> >>being
that National were wrong to stick to their beliefs and policies. If that is
true then it follows that all parties involved were equally wrong.
Rich salivating once more over a tiny morsel.
<nonsense snipped>
Tony
The critical bit was this:
"National had in fact offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers
outside Cabinet compared with Labour's offer of four and three."
JohnO's spin was clearly wrong.
Any spin that JohnO might be guilty of is eclipsed by the nonsense in the
article. The statement about the number of posts is not accompanied by
evidence. So far as I know it is unsubstantiated opinion.
Tony
No spin from me either. Dickbot's found an opinion from a journalist about cabinet offers and I believe it's crap.
Winston got what he wanted from Labour - many more cabinet positions that his vote earned, a cushy Foreign Affairs job that is max first class travel and minwork.
But the main issue is that Winston negotiated in bad faith. And Labour are lying like flatfish already: >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11942657Surely you have claimed that there have been lies previously - you
I'm sure Jacinda said she wasn't going to tell any lies. That was the first one.
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 12:00:21 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, 12 November 2017 08:43:00 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote: >> Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:34:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:30:51 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:53:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >>>>wrote:
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:42:46 UTC+13, jmschri...@gmail.com
bullying,On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:16:33 AM UTC+13, JohnO wrote: >> >>>>>> > We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering,
disgrace.preening, laziness and love of baubles.
But the disrespect he showed to the NZ voters and main political >> >>>>>> >parties
with his charade over picking a coalition party is beyond
still
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11941646
He obviously knew he could never have gone with National, yet
wanker.made
everyone wait while he played his silly little games. What a
them
All the people who voted for this idiot should be very, very
embarrassed.
So you say.
National's embarrassment is that (it seems) no-one had leaked to
ratwhat
Peters had been up to immediately prior to 23 October. After all, >> >>>>>>hypocrites
that they are, they'd have swallowed their capricious little dead
much inPeters in
less than a heartbeat had he opted to join them.
You have no idea. The fact that National refused to offer Winston
comment.order to gain power runs counter to your poorly thought through
aA fascinating examples of spin and misinformation bordering on untruths. >> >>The repeated emphasis on National refusing to do stuff clearly indicatesDo you have a cite for that? - I thought National offered one more
cabinet position to NZ Forst than they achieved under Labour.
Yes National did offer more to NZ First than Labour did - see
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98087944/the-longest-day-of-a-very-long-campaign--17-hours-that-decided-the-new-government
" . . . But on a more substantive note, NZ First's final stance was
coming into focus both on the Beehive ninth floor and over at the
Labour leader's office.
Labour knew they were still in the game because the to-ing and
fro-ing, and the requests for clarifications, kept up a steady pace.
Get the who, what, why of NZ politics in our newsletter
But on Bill English's side the contact drifted away as early as
lunchtime. Silence was not golden. Up at Paula Bennett's office what
turned into a consolation party - silly hats and all - kicked off
about 5pm, two hours before the official announcement, and ran late
into the night.
The strongest sign came mid-afternoon, with an apparent scoop by the
National Business Review reporting National had knocked back NZ First >> >>>requests for even more Cabinet and ministerial posts.
Whether it was right or not, the fact of a leak from the previously
tightly held talks was seen as a clear sign all was not well on the
National side - and that someone was trying to spin a narrative that
Labour was caving in while National stood firm and principled.
Peters - as well as English and Ardern - has since rubbished the
claim. It seems the truth was quite the reverse. National had in fact >> >>>offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers outside Cabinet compared >> >>>with Labour's offer of four and three.
What had really been the decisive issue was National's refusal to bend >> >>>on key policies - which just fed what was seen as NZ First's
preference for a new government of change rather than supporting a
fourth term National administration with some nipping and tucking on
economic policy.
It seems National was prepared to offer more "baubles of office" but
was not prepared to compromise on key economic policies including
monetary policy, and major increase in spending or further curbs on
foreign investment. Labour's policy - by comparison - was already
moving in that direction.
Immigration, too, was a sticking point though here the picture is
murkier, depending on who you talk to. One scenario suggests Labour
would not move substantially from its policy to lower net immigration >> >>>by "only" 25,000 to 30,000 as planned and it was National that was
prepared to make deeper cuts.
Others suggested National resisted making any formal cuts. But both
variations agree that National's view was that immigration would fall >> >>>sharply anyway, as the cycle turned, and it was not a big impediment. >> >>>
The final big ticket item was apparently National's refusal to
countenance Peters' flagship campaign policy of moving Auckland's port >> >>>to Whangarei.
But of course none of this was obvious at the time. . . ."
thatpolitical bias here. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to say
isthe
parties did not agree rather than one "refused"; the implication clearly >> >>being
that National were wrong to stick to their beliefs and policies. If that
cabinet offers and I believe it's crap.There is no critical bit.true then it follows that all parties involved were equally wrong.
Rich salivating once more over a tiny morsel.
<nonsense snipped>
Tony
The critical bit was this:
"National had in fact offered five Cabinet posts and two ministers
outside Cabinet compared with Labour's offer of four and three."
JohnO's spin was clearly wrong.
Any spin that JohnO might be guilty of is eclipsed by the nonsense in the >> article. The statement about the number of posts is not accompanied by
evidence. So far as I know it is unsubstantiated opinion.
Tony
No spin from me either. Dickbot's found an opinion from a journalist about
NOt accompanied by any evidence - Tony will doubtless point out to you
that your opinion is worth less than any journalist . . .
his vote earned, a cushy Foreign Affairs job that is max first class travel andWinston got what he wanted from Labour - many more cabinet positions that
Another unsupported opinion . . .
lying like flatfish already:But the main issue is that Winston negotiated in bad faith. And Labour are
one.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11942657
I'm sure Jacinda said she wasn't going to tell any lies. That was the first
Surely you have claimed that there have been lies previously - you
must be slipping johno!
Unfortunately for you the DuPlessis Allen article has been
cotnradicted by plenty of other journalists who pointed out that
National had previously agreed to support Mallard as speaker, so that
there would be an uncontested vote. National reneged on a promise -
which was indeed a salutory lesson for Labour - after all they had
been untrustworthy in government; why would they change overnight?
Labour was happy to accomodate National to achieve that unanimous
vote; the numbers of select committees don;t matter a lot; there wil
be a government majority on at least the important ones - and Labour
had a majority anyway.
We've all known about his lying, drunkenness, blustering, bullying, preening,laziness and love of baubles.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:06:33 |
| Calls: | 2,081 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,658 |